Thread: Lets talk about drugs!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You see, in this example, you are putting many more safeguards in place than we can do as the people responsible for what kind of material is allowed on this site (which exactly mirrors my comments of "If we could be sure all discussion about drugs here could be handled responsibly...") But by our allowing anyone to post anything they want about drugs, we are simply not employing that level of security. Say your child was 14, extremely impressionable and "troubled" - "mentally unstable". Would you allow that child to enter an arena where any type of banter about drugs is allowed? If you were convinced that a select few of the members of said arena were responsible, and would disclose well-intentioned information on those drugs, but that your child would also have access to many members who could not give a fuck less about taking resonsibility for what they say and paid (and preached) no heed to any of the dangers of a drug (whether a psyche. or hardcore drug), would you throw your child in and make him resonsbile for choosing which lines of thought to follow, if you could not be sure that the child would even see/read/hear/notice the more responsible members?

That arena that you are talking about, is called the Internet. Only way to stop a child from accessing the arena is to stop the child from the Internet. But that a different story, lets not go into it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

There is a psychological aspect to mind-altering substances that physical (legal or otherwise) activities do not carry. You are fighting from the stance that death/physical (in reference to the body) or physiological (in reference to the brain) risk is all that matters. This is simply not true. You can gauge a broken arm. You can gauge a level of brain damage. You cannot gauge the psychological impact that introduction to a mind-altering drug, philosophy, concept, argument, chastisement or high-level-of-praise has on the mind of any given 14-15 year old kid. No amount of statistics you can show me on the affects of mind-altering substances over "dangerous" sports will be able to fully take that variable into account. It is still a very significant risk to consider, and I don't believe you've done so.

What is more dangerous (bring your focus away from "physical" danger, for a moment)?
Allowing a 14 year old to snowboard, or convincing a 14 year old how much his/her father hates him/her?

What is more dangerous?
(And I keep using the age of 14 because that is a level we have agreed upon as a suitable level for providing information on Lucid Dreaming - which this site, again, is about - while trying not to simply allow all levels of immaturity run amok)
Allowing a 14 year old to ride a motorcycle, or convincing a 14 year old that life just isn't really worth living?

The two psychological components are possibilities inherent in the inexperienced having a go at psychedelic drugs. There is also the fallout inherent in the parents of said 14 year olds finding out about their drug use and (wrongly, I agree) allowing that to put a dent in their parent/child relationship.

I think death is worse than a psychological damage.
I think sever brain-damage is worse than a psychological damage.
I think that sever disability is worse than non-sever psychological damage.

Thats why I ignored the argument about psychological damage, because I thought this is obvious.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Please show me statistics that take all these concepts into account, when comparing the use of mind-altering substances to dangerous activities, because I'm hard-pressed to believe they exist.

I can do it, but it will take me a whole day or more, and I don't know why I should bother since you have your opinion set already, and you will certainly not allow psychedelics discussions even if I showed you that x people die or get sever psychological damage each year from psychedelics, while x*1000 die or get severely disabled from legal activities that the staff encourages.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, I'm simply going to disagree with you. It took a bit of discussion before we even decided to set the minimum age at 14, and I don't see it falling any lower than that. Regardless of what a few members may think, wide-ranging discussion about drugs (when not pertaining to dreaming) has never been a relatively Major component of this forum (besides for those people that it was a passionate issue for). All of the drugs that SKA mentioned are, as said, still being allowed to be discussed, but in the sense that the experiences talked about are those that are relevant to dreaming and are (moderated as dilligently as possible) responsible. You may think that, aside from that, not letting any and all talk about 'drugs' on this forum will make it crash and burn into a blaze of glorious obscurity, but I'm pretty confident it won't, so we'll just have to disagree on that one.

I hope that you are right. Time will tell the wiser.